Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The UN, as many peeps have often pointed out here, is the sum of its parts. It needs votes in the Security Council to take direct action so criticisms of UN inaction should be directed at the SC permanent Members, not the UN as a body.

7. Corrupt contracts: Mr. Pollock stated erroneously that the “US and Britain held up some obviously corrupt contracts under the Oil-for-Food.” In fact, neither the US, the UK nor any other country held up a single OFFP contract out of concerns over corruption, even though UN staff had flagged suspicious contracts and warned the Security Council committee overseeing the Programme.

All contracts had to be submitted to the UN for approval via the national authorities of each supplier. All details of every contract were known not only by the national authorities of each supplier but also by the members of the Security Council 661 Committee — including, of course, the US — who had the power to approve or hold any contract. All the US and UK “holds” related to concerns about “dual use”, not corruption.